Decibel! wrote:
>For reference, the original query as posted to -performance:
>select * from t1, t2 where t1.id > 158507 and t1.id = t2.id;
>That took > 84 minutes (the query was a bit longer but this is the
>part that made the difference) after a little change the query took
>~1 second:
Just out of curiosity, would predefining the order of join have solved
the issue, as in:
a. select * from t1 join t2 using(id) where t1.id > 158507;
vs.
b. select * from t2 join t1 using(id) where t1.id > 158507;
I'd expect a to be faster than b, is it?
--
Sincerely, srb(at)cuci(dot)nl
Stephen R. van den Berg.
"Technology is stuff that doesn't work yet." -- Bran Ferren
"We no longer think of chairs as technology." -- Douglas Adams